On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.
>>
>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.
>>
>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"
>>
>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.
>>
>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?
>>
>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.
>>
>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.
>>
>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.
>>
>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>>
>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>>
>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.
>>
>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>> products.
>>
>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>> grounded in any evidence.
>>
>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.
>>
>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.
>>
>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
>> in a decade.
>
> Thanks.

It was shit. When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.